I haven’t shared this before, but in early 2008, someone from WikiLeaks wrote to me. This person wondered why I hadn’t mentioned WikiLeaks on Cryptogon. He wondered if maybe I hadn’t heard of it, or had concerns that it was a front of some sort.

I simply wrote back that I was aware of WikiLeaks, and that I was hopeful and skeptical at the same time.

That remains my stance today; on WikiLeaks and every other source.

So, who knows… I’ve read interesting things on WikiLeaks, many of which I have linked to from here. Does that mean that I’m sure it’s not some kind of front or honeypot? Not at all. How could I know for sure, given what’s knowable in the public domain about WikiLeaks?

Julian Assange’s recent comment in the Belfast Telegraph about 9/11, however, may be a more tangible source of concern for me. I know Assange isn’t an idiot, so I see three other possibilities:

1. He is profoundly ignorant of the vast body of material that demonstrates that the 9/11 spectacle was a false flag operation.

2. He’s “picking his battles” and not wanting to have to deal with the inevitable conspiracy theory stigma that could threaten his media access

3. He’s running a limited hangout/honeypot

Of these three options, I doubt that it’s number two.

Also, I’m aware of all the stuff John Young has up over at Cryptome from some anonymous mole on a private WikiLeaks list. Again, who knows.

Vet the data as you would anything else from any source. Use your skills of discernment. For me, the most worrying thing about WikiLeaks is the promotion it receives from the corporate media. Even the trash talking Wired is promoting Wikileaks by constantly mentioning it.

In the end, though, obsessing about disinfo this and disinfo that is generally a waste of time. It’s safe to assume that damn near everything we come across contains disinfo.

There is the issue of stench, however. Sources that say, categorically, that there’s nothing to see here on 9/11 smell really bad to me. As bad as anything can smell. (See my maggot bucket if you think that I don’t know what smells bad.)

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? “I believe in facts about conspiracies,” he says, choosing his words slowly. “Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there’s enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.” What about 9/11? “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” What about the Bilderberg conference? “That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes.”

11 Responses to “WikiLeaks Founder, “Constantly Annoyed that People Are Distracted by False Conspiracies Such as 9/11″”

I agree 100% Kevin. I’m amazed to see people who question 9/11 actually embracing this without scepticism. Then again, millions were hoodwinked by the Obama campaign. Something really stinks about this — and, I expect the rat poison to show up before too long. Escalating war with Pakistan anyone?

This is a tough one. Wikileaks aside, I know plenty of intelligent, cynical, politically aware people who don’t have any doubts that 9/11 was a legit attack. We debate, I present my arguments, and they just argue back that it would be impossible to pull off a false flag of this scale, Popular Science proved XYZ, etc. They’re very smart critically thinking people who just won’t budge on 9/11. So, all I’m saying is that doubting the conspiracy doesn’t necessarily mark one as a double agent. I won’t be crying myself to sleep if one day it turns out Wikileaks is a honeypot, but I’m not ready to write off Assange yet. I don’t have the whole global secret mafia perfectly diagrammed, and I don’t expect anyone else to understand it all either.

Yeah, funny you would bring this up today. Just yesterday I was thinking about this very thing as I was reading Wikileaks’ latest “war logs” release. The info was kinda damning due to the civilian casualties reported, but really supported the idea of war with Pakistan, as the poster above points out. I do admit I temporarily became charmed by Wikileaks due to their apparent battle with the man, until I read their latest yesterday. It always helps that I have a best friend who is a neocon chicken-hawk (who thinks himself a common sense liberty minded patriot), and when I read something I often think about how he’s going to receive it. Woah, the word Wikileaks just set off the spellchecker, but the word neocon didn’t. What ever could this mean?:)

Excellently articulated post Kevin and I agree 100%. We should always be on the lookout for “owned dissent”… N Ireland during the Troubles was replete with that carry on and doubtless others arena of conflict have been too.

Thanks for posting this Kevin. I for one am “constantly annoyed by people who AREN’T DISTRACTED BY TRUE 9/11 CONSPIRACIES.”
I’m not so sure this isn’t a honeypot. Why release this stuff days before the war funding bill for Afghanistan is to be voted on?
Invoke fear and anger in our usually asleep at the wheel, drunk skunks in Congress who are going to flip out and vote for MORE WAR, like they always do when someone says BOO.
Me, I bought some potassium iodide tablets today. Yep. It’s been on my to do list for awhile now, but when I heard this on the radio today, I just did it.
I don’t know, maybe it will be like the Pentagon Papers and bring an end to this endless war, but I doubt it. Me figures once people in other countries read these “unsourced” documents – especially those people who have had family members die in these “anonymous” attacks on civilians, there is going to be hell to pay.
So this “leak” can work several ways. Otherwise, I agree, caution is advised on believing that Wikileaks has done something “brave and good” by releasing this information, and that they are truth tellers. I guess for me, that’s all it boils down to.
Bizarre that they gave 3 newspapers rights to look at the data before they released it on line.
Very curious. Especially when they released it to the New York Times. Troubling to me. Very troubling. A newspaper that led the march to war to begin with.
Something’s definitely fishy about this.
Thank you for reinstating my sceptiscm about motive and means, Kevin.

Floyd writes: Getting this message out via “critical” stories in “liberal” publications is much more effective than dishing up another serving of patriotic hokum on Fox News or at a presidential press conference. In fact, it is so much more effective that one almost begins to wonder about the ultimate provenance of the leaks. Did some deep-delving gamester allow these files to get out? Most likely not; but their ultimate effect does provoke the age-old question, cui bono?

some excellent and insightful commentary from Kevin brings out some excellent comments from readers. i agree with kevin pretty much, but i don’t think i would rule out option 2 in his list at this stage. after spending a lot of time looking at information from a lot of sources over the last decade, i think a large dose of scepticism is healthy and necessary. the lack of scepticism about the official 911 narrative and the kneejerk use of “conspiracy theory” as a pejorative indicates to me a stubborn refusal to recognise that there have always been myriad shades of false flag operations–it’s a very long spectrum–and most of them are never “uncovered”.

@mangrove: yeah, this thing with the US media-congressional-military-industrial complex and Pakistan is getting weirder by the day. i intend to keep a close an eye on what Brian Cloughley has to say about it…

@apethought: ha! totally agree.

@Eileen: i agree that the relationship between Wikileaks and the media is something to look at very critically.

@mangrove: Chris Floyd is generally the person for cutting through the media-political crap. he is one of the foremost experts in analysing and discerning all sorts of disinformation, in my opinion.

“when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”

REAL … war or mass financial fraud. Real evidence. The truthers rely on reported facts (like from academia, illogical reports etc.), but wikileaks provides real evidence, that leads to prosecution, media resonance and ok, that will be hijacked, media direction.
Wikileaks encourages single Individuals to leak too. It can be a big honey pot, but: During the Press Briefing From The Really White House, he said, that if only the NYT would have had the material, the reporters from the NYT would have been prosecuted. With wikileaks, they can’t hold on to anyone. So we have to admit, that wikileaks promotes decentral leaking, its only time until somebody completes freenet and it can replace wikileaks. And we don’t have to explain what it is, we can say: Look, this is the secured, distributing, bittorrent-y replacement for wikileaks…

I am in the flux vortex on this issue now. Much backpedaling to be done re my assualt of last evening. I can’t say anything without usurping the author of news to come, which may or may not be of interest to anyone who doesn’t cavort in political astrology.
@oelsen- you shame me. But thank you. Real evidence is a gift from Wikileaks. I am investigator of sorts by profession, always have to document the source of what I write. Can’t source my reports to opinions. Never would pass the report referencing (fact checking) process.
Watched a few interviews with Assange today. I didn’t see a fat head ego out there that was relishing all the attention he was getting. So that was comforting to me.
That he spoke about war crimes in Afghanistan, two thumbs up!. I have a pretty fined tuned bullshit barometer. So do others that are watching him. My read – he is trustworthy and has a pretty deep well of sorrow. What he does with that, I don’t know.
But I think someone else watching sees what I and others do in him, and is going to hand him the documents re 9/11. Yessiree. Please do. I think Julian Assange would do right by you, whoever you are. Just do it. Please. I think we are at the stage where the adults on this bus can handle it

I’m not sure if I was surprised, but definitely amused to hear nothing but Wikileaks stories on NPR all day today. It’s not often that something you come across in the not-stream shows up in the mainstream full force like this. But oh man the spin! I heard nothing damning, no shocking anything, just comments that we’ve all gone over all this stuff already, but boy does is suck for national security to have to go over it again. The rest of the day was all about the damning evidence against Pakistan.
I think the main push to the spin is – they read it for you so you don’t have to. It’s long and boring, really dense stuff, kind of like schoolwork.
As to the bit about being on topic, I’m totally game to entertain the notion that Mr. Assange is playing on either side of the field, or both, or he has no idea what his role actually is, he could just be playing spy kids.

Sometimes names just seem so curiously intertwined with purpose. What’s in a name… Assuage, Arrange, Message, Massage.
Other names that struck a chord recently – Kashkari, Fink. I giggled at Fink.

Leave a Reply

Library

Header Image

Defense.gov News Photo 110426-A-7597S-183: U.S. Special Operations service members with Special Operations Task Force South board two UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters following a clearing operation in Panjwa'i district in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, on April 25, 2011. Source: Wikimedia.

The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events. If you are a legal copyright holder, or a designated agent for such, and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "fair dealing," and legitimately infringes on your or your client's copyright, please contact Kevin Flaherty. Cryptogon contains both original material and material from external sources. Original material: Copyright Kevin Flaherty. Material from external sources: Copyright the respective owners / authors.